1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is that the plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to recognize as the plaintiff’s assertion as additional evidence submitted at the trial of the court of first instance. The court rejected each of the statements of evidence Nos. 3 through 14, and it is identical to the written judgment of the court of first instance except for changes below or additional determination as to the party’s assertion. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

From the second bottom to the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the second bottom to the third bottom shall be changed as follows:

“B. As to the instant real estate, the decision to commence compulsory auction was withdrawn on April 2, 2013 at the F’s request on March 21, 2012, and the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was revoked on April 8, 2013, and on August 5, 2009, the registration of the registration of the establishment of collateral mortgages and superficies was completed on April 13, 2012; and on February 4, 2010, the registration of provisional seizure (the claimed amount KRW 16,95,810) in F’s name was revoked on July 10, 2013.”

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is in the process of compulsory auction and the registration of provisional seizure is completed with respect to the real estate of this case, and if the contract for the sale of this case is cancelled, the defendant D would have to pay a large amount of damages to the defendants, and it would be inevitable to prepare the confirmation document of this case to the defendants. Since the defendants would make a large amount of damages, the act of preparing the confirmation document of this case is invalid as an unfair legal act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act.

B. Considering the judgment, the unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Code has an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and there is a subjective imbalance between payment and consideration, and it is established when a transaction which has lost balance as such was conducted using the brush, rash, or inexperience of the victimized Party. Accordingly, Supreme Court Decision 209Da30598 Decided September 30, 201